Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians pp 113–146Cite as

Recognition and Localization of Acoustic Signals

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Springer Handbook of Auditory Research ((SHAR,volume 28))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adler TB, Rose GJ (1998) Long-term temporal integration in the anuran auditory system. Nat Neurosci 1:519–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander RD (1975) Natural selection and specialized chorusing behavior in acoustical insects. In: Pimentel D ed Insects, Science and Society. New York: Academic, pp.35–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arak A (1983) Sexual selection by male-male competition in natterjack toad choruses. Nature 306:261–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arak A (1988) Female mate selection in the natterjack toad: Active choice or passive attraction? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:317–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckers OM, Schul J (2004) Phonotaxis in Hyla versicolor (Anura: Hylidae): The effect of absolute call amplitude. J Comp Physiol A 190:869–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA (2002) Territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) do not assess fighting ability based on size-related variation in acoustic signals. Behav Ecol 13:109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA (2003a) A test of the “dear enemy effect“ in the strawberry dart-poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Behav Ecol Sociobio l54:601–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA (2003b) Experience-based plasticity of acoustically evoked aggression in a territorial frog. J Comp Physiol A 189:485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA (2004) Within-individual variation in bullfrog vocalizations: Implications for a vocally mediated social recognition system. J Acoust Soc Amer 116:3770–3781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA, Bowling AC (2002) Socially mediated pitch alteration by territorial male bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. J Herp 36:140–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2001a) Neighbour-stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): I. Acoustic basis. Anim Behav 62:1129–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2001b) Neighbour-stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): II. Perceptual basis. Anim Behav 62:1141–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2001c) Habituation as a mechanism of reduced aggression between neighboring territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). J Comp Psychol 115:68–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA, Gerhardt HC (2002) Individual voice recognition in a territorial frog (Rana catesbeiana). Proc Roy Soc Lond B 269:1443–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA, Perrill SA, Owen PC (2000) Male green frogs lower the pitch of acoustic signals in defense of territories: A possible dishonest signal of size? Behav Ecol 11:169–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair WF (1964) Evolution at populational and interpopulational levels: Isolating mechanisms and interspecies interactions in anuran amphibians. Quart Rev Biol 39:333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boatright-Horowitz SL, Horowitz SS, Simmons AM (2000) Patterns of vocal interactions in a bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) chorus: Preferential responding to far neighbors. Ethology 106:701–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch J, Boyero L (2003) Double stimulation of the inner ear organs of an anuran species (Alytes cisernasii) with simple tonal advertisement calls. J Zoology 260:347–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch J, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2000) Signal variation and call preferences in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:62–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourne GR, Collins AC, Holder AM, McCarthy CL (2001) Vocal communication and reproductive behavior of the frog Colostethus beebei in Guyana. J Herp 35:272–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenowitz EA (1989) Neighbor call amplitude influences aggressive behavior and intermale spacing in choruses of the Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla). Ethology 83:69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenowitz EA, Rose GJ, Adler T (2001) The neuroethology of acoustic communication in pacific treefrogs. In: Ryan MJ ed Anuran Communication. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 145–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burmeister SS, Ophir AG, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (2002) Information transfer during cricket frog contests. Anim Behav 64:715–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush SL, Gerhardt HC, Schul J (2001) Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): A quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm. Anim Behav 63:7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capranica RR, Moffat AJM (1983) Neurobehavioral correlates of sound communication in anurans. In: Ewert JP, Capranica RR, Ingle DJ eds Advances in Vertebrate Neuroethology. New York: Plenum, pp. 701–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellano S, Giacoma C (1998) Stabilizing and directional female choice for male calls in the European green toad. Anim Behav 56:275–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davies NB, Halliday TR (1978) Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads Bufo bufo. Nature 274:683–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MS (1987) Acoustically mediated neighbor recognition in the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:185–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekamp BM, Gerhardt HC (1995) Behavioral and neurophysiological studies of acoustic communication in the gray treefrog Hyla versicolor. J Comp Physiol A 177:173–190.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T (1940) Speciation as a stage in evolutionary divergence. Am Natur 74: 312–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty JA, Gerhardt HC (1984a) Acoustic communication in hybrid treefrogs: Sound production by males and selective phonotaxis of females. J Comp Physiol A 154: 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty JA, Gerhardt HC (1984b) Evolutionary and neurobiological implications of selective phonotaxis in the spring peeper (Hyla crucifer). Anim Behav 32:875–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duellman WE, Trueb L (1986) tBiology of Amphibians. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson ML, Passmore NI (1992) Effect of intermale spacing on female frequency preferences in the painted reed frog. Copeia 1992:1111–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards CJ, Adler TB, Rose GJ (2002) Auditory midbrain neurons that count. Nat Neurosci 5:934–936.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elephandt A, Eistettler I, Fleig A, Gunther E, Hainich S, Hepperle S, Traub B (2000). Hearing threshold and frequency discrimination in the purely aquatic frog Xenopus laevis (Pipidae): Measurement by means of conditioning. J Exp Biol 203:3621–3629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng AS (1982) Quantitative analysis of intensity-rate and intensity-latency functions in peripheral auditory nerve fibers of northern leopard frogs (Rana p. pipiens) Hear Res 6:242–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng AS, Capranica RR (1978) Sound localization in anurans. II. Binaural interaction in superior olivary nucleus of the green tree frog (Hyla cinerea). J Neurophysiol 41:43–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feng AS, Schellart NAM (1999) Central auditory processing in fish and amphibians. In: Fay RR, Popper AN eds Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. New York: Springer, pp. 218–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fouquette MJ (1975) Speciation in chorus frogs. I.Reproductive character displacement in the Pseudacris nigrita complex. Syst Zool 24:16–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedl TWP, Klump GM (2005) Sexual selection in the lek-breeding European treefrog (Hyla arborea): Body size, chorus attendance, random mating, and good genes. Anim Behav 70:1141–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1974) Vocalizations of some hybrid treefrogs: Acoustic and behavioral analyses. Behaviour 49:130–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1975) Sound pressure levels and radiation patterns of the vocalizations of some North American frogs and toads. J Comp Physiol A 102:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1978a) Discrimination of intermediate sounds in a synthetic call continuum by female green tree frogs. Science 199:1089–1091.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1978b) Temperature coupling in the vocal communication system of the gray treefrog Hyla versicolor. Science 199:992–994.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1981) Mating call recognition in the barking treefrog (Hyla gratiosa): Responses to synthetic calls and comparisons with the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea). J Comp Physiol A 144:17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1987) Evolutionary and neurobiological implications of selective phonotaxis in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea). Anim Behav 35:1479–1489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1988) Acoustic properties used in call recognition by frogs and toads. In: Fritzsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington TE, Walkowiak W eds The Evolution of the Anuran Auditory System. New York: Wiley, pp. 455–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1991) Female mate choice in treefrogs: Static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav 42:615–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1994a) The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:293–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (1994b) Reproductive character displacement of female mate choice in the grey treefrog H. Chrysoscelis. Anim Behav 47:959–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (2005a) Acoustic spectral preferences in two cryptic species of gray treefrogs: Implications for mate choice and sensory mechanisms. Anim Behav 70:39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC (2005b) Advertisement-call preferences in diploid-tetraploid treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis and Hyla versicolor): Implications for mate choice and the evolution of communication systems. Evolution 59:395–408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Doherty JA (1988) Acoustic communication in the gray treefrog,Hyla versicolor: Evolutionary and neurobiological implications. J Comp Physiol A 162:261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Höbel G (2005) Mid-frequency suppression in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea): Mechanisms and implications for the evolution of acoustic communication. J Comp Physiol A 191:707–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans: Common Problems and Diverse Solutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Klump GM (1988) Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green treefrog: A limitation on mate choice. Anim Behav 36:1247–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Mudry KM (1980) Temperature effects on frequency preferences and mating call frequencies in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) (Anura: Hylidae). J Comp Physiol A 137:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Rheinlaender J (1980) Accuracy of sound localization in a miniature dendrobatid frog. Naturwissenschaften 67:362–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Rheinlaender (1982) Localization of an elevated sound source by the green treefrog. Science 217:663–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Schul J (1999) A quantitative analysis of behavioral selectivity for pulse-rise time in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. J Comp Physiol A 185:33–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Schwartz JJ (2001) Auditory tuning and frequency preferences in anurans. In: Ryan MJ ed Anuran Communication. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Dyson ML, Tanner SD (1996) Dynamic acoustic properties of the advertisement calls of gray treefrogs: Patterns of variability and female choice. Behav Ecol 7:7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Tanner SD, Corrigan CM, Walton HC (2000) Female preference functions based on call duration in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). Behav Ecol 11:663–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Given MF (1987) Vocalizations and acoustic interactions of the carpenter frog, Rana virgatipes. Herpetologica 43:467–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Given MF (1999) Frequency alteration of the advertisement call in the carpenter frog, Rana virgatipes. Herpetologica 55:304–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafe TU (1995) Graded aggressive calls in the African reed frog Hyperolius marmoratus (Hyperoliidae). Ethology 101:67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafe TU (1997) Costs and benefits of mate choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav 53:1103–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday TR, Tejedo M (1995) Intrasexual selection and alternative mating behaviour. In: Heatwole H, Sullivan BK eds Amphibian Biology: Vol. 2: Social Behaviour. Chipping Norton, UK: Surrey Beatty, pp. 419–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausfater G, Gerhardt HC, Klump G (1990) Parasites and mate choice in gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor. Am Zool 30:299–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höbel G, Gerhardt HC (2003) Reproductive character displacement in the communication system of green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea). Evolution 57:894–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hödl W, Amézquita A, Narins PM (2004).The role of call frequency and the auditory papillae in phonotactic behavior in male dart-poison frogs Epipedobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae). J Comp Physiol A 190:823–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard RD (1978) Evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution 32:850–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen MB, Christensen-Dalsgaard (1997) Directionality of auditory nerve fiber responses to pure tone stimuli in the grassfrog, Rana temporaria. I.spike rate responses. J Comp Physiol A 180:493–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen MB, Gerhardt HC (1991) Directional hearing in the gray treefrog Hyla versicolor: Eardrum vibrations and phonotaxis. J Comp Physiol A 169:177–183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kime NM, Turner WR, Ryan MJ (2000) The transmission of advertisement calls in central American frogs. Behav Ecol 11:71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klump GM, Gerhardt HC (1989) Sound localization in the barking treefrog. Naturwissenschaften 76:35–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klump GM, Benedix JH, Gerhardt HC, Narins PM (2004) AM representation in green treefrog auditory nerve fibers: Neuroethological implications for pattern recognition and sound localization. J Comp Physiol A 190:1011–1021.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lesbarrères D, Lodé T (2002) Variations in male calls and responses to an unfamiliar advertisement call in a territorial breeding anuran, Rana dalmatina: Evidence for a “dear enemy” effect. Ethol Ecol Evol 14:287–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis ER, Narins PM (1999) The acoustic periphery of amphibians: Anatomy and physiology. In: Fay RR, Popper AN eds Comparative Hearing: Fishes and Amphibians. New York: Springer, pp. 101–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn MJ (1965) Premating isolation in the Hyla ewingi complex (Anura: Hylidae). Evolution 19:234–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard ER, Straughan IR (1974) Functional aspects of anuran middle ear structures. J Exp Biol 61:57–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez PT, Narins PM, Lewis ER, Moore SW (1988) Acoustically-induced call modification in the white-lipped frog, Leptodactylus albilabris. Anim Behav 36:1295–1308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Márquez R, Bosch J (1997) Female preference in complex acoustical environments in the midwife toads Alytes obstetricans and Alytes cisternasii. Behav Ecol 8:588–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin WF (1972) Evolution of vocalization in the genus Bufo. In: Blair WF /ed Evolution in the Genus Bufo. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 279–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mecham JS (1960) Introgressive hybridization between two southeastern tree frogs. Evolution 14:447–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megela AL, Capranica RR (1983) A neural and behavioral study of auditory habituation in the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. J Comp Physiol A 151:423–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen A, Jørgensen M, Christensen-Dalsgaard J, Capranica RR (1986) Directional hearing of awake, unrestrained treefrogs. Naturwissenschaften 73:682–683.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy CG (2003) The cause of correlations between nightly numbers of male and female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa) attending choruses. Behav Ecol 14:274–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narins PM, Hödl W, Grabul DS (2003) Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:577–580.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DA, Marler P (1990) The perception of birdsong and an ecological concept of signal space. In: Stebbins WC, Berkley MA eds Comparative Perception, Vol II: Complex Signals.New York: Wiley, pp. 443–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noor MAF (1999) Reinforcement and other consequences of sympatry. Heredity 83: 503–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Passmore NI, Capranica RR, Telford SR, Bishop PJ (1984) Phonotaxis in the painted reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus). The localization of elevated sound sources J Comp Physiol A 154:189–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penna M, Solís R (1998) Frog call intensities and sound propagation in the South American temperate forest region. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:371–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfennig KS (2000) Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings. Behav Ecol 11:220–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheinlaender J, Gerhardt HC, Yager D, Capranica RR (1979) Accuracy of phonotaxis in the green treefrog(Hyla cinerea). J Comp Physiol A 133:247–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheinlaender J, Walkowiak W, Gerhardt HC (1981) Directional hearing in the green treefrog: A variable mechanism? Naturwissenschaften 67:430–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson JGM (1986) Male territoriality, fighting and assessment of fighting ability in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim Behav 34:763–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson JGM (1990) Female choice increases fertilisation success in the Australian frog, Uperoleia laevigata. Anim Behav 39:639–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal GG, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2004) The vocal sac as a visual cue in anuran communication: An experimental analysis using video playback. Anim Behav 68:55–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Natur 139:S4–S35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993a) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993b) Sexual selection and signal evolution: The ghost of biases past. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 340:187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Rand AS (2003) Sexual selection in female perceptual space: How female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 57:2608–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (1991) Evolution of intraspecific variation in the advertisement call of a cricket frog(Acris crepitans, Hylidae). Biol J Linnean Soc 44:249–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Fox JH, Wilczynski W, Rand AS (1990) Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schul J, Bush SL (2002) Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:847–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz JJ (1993) Male calling behavior, female discrimination and acoustic interference in the Neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala under realistic acoustic conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:401–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz JJ, Gerhardt HC (1995) Directionality of the auditory system and call pattern recognition during acoustic interference in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Aud Neurosci 1:195–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz JJ, Buchanan B, Gerhardt HC (2001) Female mate choice in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in three experimental environments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49: 443–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telford SR (1985) Mechanisms and evolution of inter-male spacing in the painted reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus). Anim Behav 33:1353–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temeles EJ (1994) The role of neighbors in territorial systems: When are they dear enemies? Anim Behav 47:339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner Jr WE (1989a) Social correlates of variation in male calling behavior in Blanchard’s cricket frog, Acris crepitans blanchardi. Ethology 82:27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner Jr WE (1989b) Fighting, assessment, and frequency alteration in Blanchard’s cricket frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:429–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner Jr WE (1995) Measuring female mating preferences. Anim Behav 55:1029–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch AM (2003) Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 57:883–893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928–1930.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wells KD (2001) The energetics of calling in frogs. In: Ryan MJ ed Recent Advances in Anuran Communication. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells KD, Taigen TL (1986) The effects of social interactions on calling energetics in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitney CL (1980) Role of the encounter call in spacing of Pacific tree frogs, Hyla regilla. Can J Zool 58:75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilczynski W, Brenowitz EA (1988) Acoustic cues mediate inter-male spacing in a Neotropical frog. Anim Behav 36:1054–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte K, Ryan MJ, Wilczynki W (2001) Changes in frequency structure of a mating call decrease its attractiveness to females in the cricket frog Acris crepitans blanchardi. Ethology 107:685–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. H. Carl Gerhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark A. Bee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Physiological Science and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1606, USA

    Peter M. Narins

  2. Department of Molecular & Integrative Physiology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

    Albert S. Feng

  3. Parmly Hearing Institute and Department of Psychology, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60626, USA

    Richard R. Fay

  4. Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

    Arthur N. Popper

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gerhardt, H.C., Bee, M.A. (2007). Recognition and Localization of Acoustic Signals. In: Narins, P.M., Feng, A.S., Fay, R.R., Popper, A.N. (eds) Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, vol 28. Springer, New York, NY . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-47796-1_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation